325-a IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-2098-SB-2005 Date of Decision: April 04, 2025 Melo … Appellant Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajeev K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab. DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) Appellant – Melo was tried by learned Judge, Special Court, Pa(ala, in a case arising out of FIR No.136 of 14.03.2001 under Sec(on 15 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Sta(on Civil Lines, Pa(ala, as she was found in possession of 20 Kg of poppy husk. A4er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec(on 15(b) of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 14.07.2005 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of ₹5,000/- with default sentence of 06 months rigorous imprisonment in case of non- payment of fine. 2. Against the abovesaid convic(on and sentence, this appeal was filed. 3. Today learned counsel for the appellant stated at the outset that appellant does not press the appeal against the judgment of convic(on; and that appellant confines his prayer only against order of sentence. It is submi<ed that appellant would be sa(sfied, in case she is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by her. 4. Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2001; that the age of the appellant was recorded as 50 years at that (me; that appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 07 months and 07 days and so, she deserves to be sentenced for the period already undergone by her. 5. Learned State counsel has not seriously objected to the aforesaid prayer. Sarita Rani 2025.04.05 10:36 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CRA-S-2098-SB-2005 - 2 - 2025:PHHC:046726 6. The custody cer(ficate placed on record by the respondent- State would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody sentence of 07 months and 07 days. Though, as per custody cer(ficate, she has been convicted in 08 different cases, but she has already completed the sentence in all those cases. Those cases were registered much earlier. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a4er this convic(on, appellant has been involved in any other case. She was 50 years of age at the (me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2001 i.e. 24 years back and now the appellant is an old age woman of about 70 years. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of jus(ce, if the period of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant, instead of sending her behind bars in the company of hardened criminals. 8. Consequently, the present appeal is partly accepted. By maintaining the impugned judgment against convic(on, the order of sentence as passed by the trial Court is modified and the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by her. As far as the fine is concerned, it will remain same. Disposed of. April 04, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.04.05 10:36 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order